LawyersPaul-Erik Veel

About

Paul-Erik has* more than a few areas of practice. He has tried commercial, competition, intellectual property, employment, and criminal cases, not to mention having acted as counsel in commercial and sports law arbitrations and administrative hearings. He has been recognized as a Precedent Setter not only for his for breadth of practice, but also because he has more than a dash of § teaching experience at the University of Toronto in law and economics, international law, and public law. Whatever the problem, Paul-Erik solves it with his talent‡ , know-how and experience, which allow him to analyze the case from all angles and to cross-examine the toughest of witnesses..

Paul-Erik has extensive trial experience, having acted as counsel in trials involving a number of industries and subject-matters, including a dispute over the implementation of a software package, an intellectual property matter relating to a pharmaceutical product, a misleading advertising case, and several contractual disputes. He has appeared repeatedly before both the Supreme Court of Canada and the Ontario Court of Appeal. Paul-Erik also has extensive experience with regulatory and public law proceedings, having represented clients in professional discipline committee proceedings, commissions of inquiry, and before various administrative tribunals.

Paul-Erik has acted as an adjunct professor at the University of Toronto Faculty of Law. He is currently a sessional lecturer in the graduate program in the Department of Economics at the University of Toronto, where he teaches Economic Analysis of Law. He has published articles on a variety of legal topics, including contracts, class actions, competition law, and constitutional law. Prior to joining Lenczner Slaght in 2010, Paul-Erik graduated as the Gold Medalist from the University of Toronto Faculty of Law, and then clerked for Madam Justice Louise Charron at the Supreme Court of Canada.

Counsel to a psychiatrist in an appeal raising the novel issue of the jurisdiction of the Consent and Capacity Board to grant remedies under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Successfully responded to the appeal.

Counsel to Atos in a dispute respecting the termination of a subcontract for data conversion and software support. The matter was subject to numerous motions and proceeded to a five week trial before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, where Atos was successful in recovering approximately $5.5 million in damages.

Counsel to a series of companies in proceedings involving a receivership over commercial real estate developments and efforts to recover $110 million in funds improperly diverted. The matter involved dozens of contested motions and several appeals on a variety of commercial, real estate issue and construction law issues.

Counsel to the Commissioner of Competition in proceedings against Rogers Communications Inc. and Chatr Wireless Inc. relating to misleading advertising under the Deceptive Marketing Practices provisions of the Competition Act. The application involved successful defence to a constitutional challenge to certain provisions of the Competition Act brought by the respondents.

Counsel to a bar owner charged with manslaughter arising in connection with a fatal highway accident after a patron's consumption of alcohol at the bar. The Crown alleged that the act of over-serving alcohol to the driver of the vehicle prior to the accident constituted criminal negligence causing death, notwithstanding that the accused was in no way involved in the act of driving. In a case which raised novel issues in the law of manslaughter, the accused was successfully discharged following a preliminary inquiry. The decision was upheld by the Superior Court of Justice.

Counsel to electors in successful proceedings before the City of Toronto Compliance Audit Committee to commence a compliance audit of election campaign finances and prosecution of a former city councillor.

Counsel for appellant/respondent on cross-appeal, Southcott Estates Inc., on an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the duty to mitigate losses and the availability of the remedy of specific performance in a breach of contract action.

Counsel to the elector in successful proceedings before the City of Toronto Compliance Audit Committee to commence a compliance audit of election campaign finances and prosecution of a sitting city councillor.

Counsel to a physician in a successful Charter application to exclude evidence seized in contravention of the accused's right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. The application involved the application of constitutional principles to the search of internet service providers and psychiatric offices.

Under Canadian law, many provisions of the Competition Act can only be enforced by the Commissioner of Competition, and not by private parties. That has led to a dearth of jurisprudence, and certainty, regarding the interpretation of several provisions of the Competition Act. For that reason, both major businesses and industry groups will want to take careful note of the recent decision in Toronto Real Estate Board v Commissioner of Competition, where the Federal Court of Appeal gave further guidance as to when a party will be liable for abuse of dominance.

Class actions are almost invariably complicated and expensive matters for businesses to deal with. Such class actions only become more complicated and expensive the bigger the classes are. Now, in Airia Brands Inc v Air Canada, the Ontario Court of Appeal has given the green light to a class action that includes class members all around the world. This decision has significant implications for virtually all multinational businesses.

A recurring source of challenging legal problems in the price-fixing class actions, and in class actions more generally, is the issue of what information and evidence the Courts can compel government investigators to provide to private litigants for use in those class actions.

While competition law specialists are familiar with the ongoing debate about umbrella purchaser claims, most Canadian lawyers could be forgiven for wondering what all the fuss is about umbrellas. Far from being individuals who rejected raincoats or ponchos in favour of a more traditional option, umbrella purchasers are now at the center of a heated debate in Canadian competition law.

Ontario’s new legislation governing international commercial arbitration, the International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, came into force on March 22, 2017, replacing the International Commercial Arbitration Act previously in place.

Using rules of thumb to generate estimates can be very useful in a variety of circumstances: for example, when the detailed information necessary to generate a precise answer is unavailable, or when it’s too difficult to analyze that detailed information. Lawyers use such rules of thumb in a number of circumstances, sometimes as an initial rough estimate, and sometimes to confirm the results of more detailed analysis.

To most people, a contract is a written agreement, typically signed by all parties, that sets out what different parties promise to do. But what happens that the written agreement is ambiguous? Courts have long held that evidence of the “factual matrix” of the contract—that is, the surrounding circumstances that inform the context in which a contract is created—is admissible in the interpretation of a contract. In its recent decision in Shewchuk v Blackmont Capital Inc, the Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed that evidence of subsequent conduct may also be admissible to interpret the agreement itself.

Lawyers sometimes describe cases as being like a law school problem. Sometimes that means that the case raises difficult and complicated questions of law and fact that are nearly impossible to resolve. And sometimes it means that the case raises an obscure issue that seems more like a dispute between property owners in 19th century England. Gallant v Dugard squarely falls into the latter category.

The limitation period for claims under s. 36 of the Competition Act is a longstanding question of Canadian competition law. The plain language of the statute suggests that such claims must be brought within two years of the anticompetitive conduct. But in Fanshawe College of Applied Arts and Technology v AU Optronics Corporation, the Ontario Court of Appeal has reached a conclusion that is much more generous to Plaintiffs, holding that such claims must be brought within two years of the Plaintiff discovering the anticompetitive conduct.

An interlocutory injunction is a valuable tool to maintain the status quo between parties, pending the resolution of litigation. Most disputes over whether an interlocutory injunction should be granted will depend on whether there will be “irreparable harm” if an injunction is not granted. However, as Guelph Taxi v Guelph Police Service shows, it is also critical that the party seeking an injunction give a meaningful undertaking to pay damages if the injunction is granted but the party is ultimately unsuccessful.

It’s no surprise to litigators that some courts tend to be relaxed with the rules of evidence in civil cases. In many contexts, courts are prepared to admit inadmissible hearsay evidence and simply address evidentiary concerns by noting that such evidence may be given less weight. That type of approach was often taken in cases under section 8 of the Patented Medicine (Notice of Compliance) Regulations.

Non-competition clauses in employment agreements pose challenges for employers who seek to enforce them. Non-competes have to be reasonable in scope at the time they are agreed to; a perpetual or geographically unlimited non-compete covering a broad range of competitors is almost certain to be unenforceable. However, as the recent B.C. Supreme Court decision in P.R.I.S.M. v. Kramchynski highlights, an employer seeking to rely on a non-compete against a former employee must also uphold their obligations under their contract with that employee.

In its recent decision in Gutowski v. Clayton, 2014 ONCA 921, the Ontario Court of Appeal provided helpful advice to two sets of professionals: municipal councillors and lawyers. First, the Court confirmed for municipal councillors that they do not enjoy absolute privilege for defamatory statements they make during municipal council meetings. Second, the Court signalled to litigators that a Rule 21 motion is not the "appropriate vehicle" through which to attempt to develop an area of law that is not fully settled.

Canadian Courts have been faced in recent years with a number of class actions in which employees allege that their employer improperly misclassified them as ineligible for overtime pay. The Ontario Court of Appeal's recent decision in Brown v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce makes it more difficult for such claims to proceed as class actions.

The British Columbia Supreme Court's decision in Low v. Pfizer Canada Inc., 2014 BCSC 1469 could radically change the legal landscape for patent law in Canada. Patent law has thus far been entirely statutory rather than a product of the common law; courts had not recognized any common law rights or remedies in relation to patents. The decision of Justice Smith changes that, and in so doing changes the risks innovators must consider.

Paul-Erik Veel was quoted in the Canadian Lawyer Legal Feeds article Indigenous activist heads back to court in fight against Cleveland Indians logo on December 7, 2017 regarding Douglas Cardinal's continued fight against Cleveland's baseball team name and logo. The Ontario Divisional Court heard arguments on the case on December 13, 2017.

Paul-Erik Veel was quoted in the CBC Sports article Cleveland Indians' logo still under fire from Canadian activist on July 13, 2017 regarding the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal deciding to move forward with Douglas Cardinal's discrimination case against the Cleveland team name and logo.

Paul-Erik Veel was quoted in the USA TODAY Sports article Meet the man behind fight to keep Indians logo out of Canada on June 28, 2017 regarding Douglas Cardinal and his discrimination case against the Cleveland team name and logo.

Paul-Erik Veel was quoted in the Toronto Star article MLB wants Human Rights Tribunal ruling on Cleveland logo thrown out on June 27, 2017 regarding Major League Baseball's application for judicial review before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice arguing that the case against the Cleveland team name and logo should be set aside due to jurisdictional issues.

Paul-Erik Veel and Rebecca Jones were quoted in the USA TODAY Sports article Challenge to Indians' Chief Wahoo case moves forward in Toronto on June 6, 2017 regarding the recent Ontario Human Rights Tribunal green lighting the discrimination case against Cleveland major league baseball team name and logo.

The nine judges who sit on the Supreme Court are the ultimate guardians of individuals rights guaranteed under the Charter. Those judges define the contours of those rights and order remedies to vindicate breaches of those rights.